The Master Switch

Gerard Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Professor Magliocca is the author of three books and over twenty articles on constitutional law and intellectual property. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford, his law degree from Yale, and joined the faculty after two years as an attorney at Covington and Burling and one year as a law clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Magliocca has received the Best New Professor Award and the Black Cane (Most Outstanding Professor) from the student body, and in 2008 held the Fulbright-Dow Distinguished Research Chair of the Roosevelt Study Center in Middelburg, The Netherlands. He was elected to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2013.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. A.J. Sutter says:

    You know, if you look in a few museums around the world, you find that much of the best art was produced under monarchies and empires. Censorship was pervasive, and the penalties a bit stiffer than what the studio moguls dished out (I don’t think Clark Gable had to worry about getting burned at the stake). You got your Michelangelos, Da Vincis, Coliseums, Versailles-es, and all those golden Buddhas, on the one hand, versus your Warhols, Schnabels, Hirsts, Las Vegas and Jeff Koons (not -es, fortunately). Shall we go back?

  2. Gerard Magliocca says:

    I must admit — an excellent comeback.

    Another way of looking at this is the difference between peer review (the analogy to monopoly) and student review (the open system) for scholarship. Law operates on an open system. That leads to the publication of a lot of poor articles, but also generates more diversity and a greater willingness to take risks. Most disciplines, of course, do not function this way. Are they wrong? I can’t say that unequivocally.

  3. Tim Wu says:

    My argument is that monopolies and integration tend to produce a kind of golden age that lasts for about 10 years. And then everything goes to hell.

    If film had stuck the way it was in the 1950s for decades… not so good.

    Second, the Golden Age was also marred by a level of censorship that I personally find unacceptable. For example, Warner Bros wanted to make a film about the threat of the Nazis in the mid-1930s — killed by Breen, a noted anti-semite.

    As for the argument that censorship and monarchy create great art I give you, in contrast, the period from say 500 AD to 1500 AD.